“First, Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.”

...with absolutely no empirical or scientific data to support this position. That’s what is so frustrating to me: if there were a “gay gene”, I have to believe there would be SOME evidence of it, but there’s simply not.

Colonel, USAFR

11 posted on 12/27/2010 7:30:37 AM PST by jagusafr
("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., HutchinsonGilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.

Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., HutchinsonGilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.

"If there were a gay gene, I have to believe there would be SOME evidence of it, but theres simply not."

And it's irrelevant in any case. Even if there were a "gay gene," it would operate at the level of a suggestion, not a command; in other words, it would influence inclination; it would not control behavior.

Every person alive has innate temperment factors which are influenced by genetics. You might get your hot temper from your father, or slide towards "melancholic and depressive" like your grandma. You might have a bent toward overeating and oversleeping, like your kinfolks on one side, or be more inclined toward hyperactivity and impulsiveness, like your kinfolks on the other side.

The same--- who knows? --- might be partially applicable to innate sex drives, too. I say "might be". I say "partially". Who knows?

But behavior is not irresistably dictated by inherted traits. If gays were in fact incapable of controlling their sexual behavior,, then not only should they not be in the military; they shouldn't even be allowed out of the house.

But if there's no "behavior," then it's a non-issuie. Don't ask, don't tell.

25 posted on 12/27/2010 9:55:09 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
("Justice and judgment are the foundation of His throne." Psalm 89:14)